Have any of you experienced a refusal by UCO to permit an attorney review of a questionable applicant? Did You know this a contractual obligation of UCO through the BILATERAL AGREEMENT?
One Association has already experienced a breach of this agreement by Mr. Loewenstein.
That’s right BREACH OF CONTRACT!
When Mr. President was first appointed Assistant Treasurer and later elected to the Treasurer post he held for two years, he overtly dismantled the contract with all Associations. I say overtly because even though the contract was placed in effect prior to his appointment, he nevertheless had no right to dismantle this contract, nor did he ask the approval of the Executive Board or the Board of Directors, Delegate Assembly. It would seem apparent that the old adage “absolute power corrupts absolutely”
Our agreement with UCO is clear. We pay $ 100.00 per investigation and whatever remains after the costs are paid, simply remains in an “Appropriated Fund” “used for the unanticipated and unbudgeted legal costs as an appropriated fund balance” Why then has UCO changed the process to budget the “Income” and “Expenses” for Investigations?
If we were still operating as before this simply is not necessary. Why the change? Who authorized it? Do we Associations continue to have absolute authority to seek attorney review and expect defense if sued? Only the President of UCO knows, and that is just unacceptable. He refusal of one Association has set in concrete the Breach that is now in effect.
How do you feel about this change in policy, UCO NEEDS to know?
Saturday, January 5, 2008
Breach of Contract
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
Is this breach the reason UCO was trying to raise the investigation fees to $200 for a couple? Just wondering. Mike
Good evaluation, Mike.
Trouble is that the Breach is something UCO must fix or all Associations could just use their Management Companies sources.
Seacrest does investigations for Dover and has for quite some time. Why pay more than the cost if we don’t share the expense of legal evaluation and legal protection, provided you follow the review opinion of the Attorney Tennyson?
UCO has exceeded it authority in a number of ways, and this is only one. This total disregard of principals of operation is totally unacceptable and must stop!
What’s you view – UCO needs your recommendations, now!
Let Me see if I got this right. UCO did the investigations and with the extra money they charged ,a fund was set up that covered all the Assoc. legally by Tennyson. Since UCO has estblished a line item in the budget for investigations , the fund is no longer increasing in value or does not exist at all.
In that case, My Assoc. would be better off having Seacrest do the investigation and My assoc. could set aside the extra money in a fund to hire our own lawyer, if we were sued. I'm not to bright when it comes to these matters, let Me know if I have this correct. MIKE
Hi Mike
I believe you are right on target. Let’s face it, the fact the funding was there to permit attorney review and further to defend if an applicant sued, was the reason why we agreed UCO could retain the surplus. They continue to show the ‘growing fund’ but have decided to no longer allow access without the President’s personal approval of the review and he also believes he may decide just who will be covered provided there is a law suit.
The Bilateral Agreement never gave this authority to anyone, but the Association, and not the President of UCO!. Contractually the Agreement states: ”Should the Association decide to reject the Applicant and UCO’s Attorney concurs, then UCO will cover legal expenses, should the rejection result in a law suit against the Association.
Mr. Loewenstein has refused to honor this contractual obligation in one case already, necessitating the Association to go out and hire it’s own Attorney to continue the defense that was and should have remained UCO’s responsibility.
This is just another example of POOR judgment and could result in that Association entering into a suit against UCO to recover the costs incurred.
We need new leadership. Please, someone put in your resume and run for President. How many more missteps can we afford to permit that may come home to create MORE under funded Legal expenses?
Ed Black
Let's face it. UCO like Washington has been broken for some time.
WHAT'S THE FIX ?
We have the Millennium Agreement check, UCO Bylaws check, and you mention the Bilateral Agreement. What and where is that. Thx for your quote, what else is in the Bilateral Agreement.
Where would a Condo owner get a copy of the bilateral Agreement? Is UCO required to supply this document to a CV condo owner, if Owner pays the copy expense? Mike
Yes UCO does maintain the signed Bilateral Agreements and at last count about 75 % of Associations signed the Agreement. However legal opinion has stated that all Associations have ratified the Agreement by operating under the agreement even if they never signed it.
Copies may be obttained from UCO.
Hi Ed, I need clarification on the legal review. UCO does the investigation after collecting the $100 from the Assoc. Before the investigation is discussed with the Assoc. , does Tennyson review the investigation and gives his opinion or does that only happen if an Assoc. determines it will not approve an applicant? In the later case , does the Assoc. then go back to UCO to get Tennyson's legal opinion before informing the Appl. Mike
Mike, you are right on track. I am not Ed, but did work in the investigation dept. for more than 5 years. If you have an applicant for your Ass'n. be they for owner, occ., renter and the Board wishes to reject for whatever the reason be, you should take the paperwork along with a cover letter as to why the Board wants to reject, back to UCO. It is then faxed to Tennyson for his legal opinion. When his opinion is received back and the Board follows it, the Board will then have the backing of UCO & Tennyson in case of a lawsuit against the Assn'. That is then when the legal fund would kick in and the Ass'n. would be covered. Should Tennyson say that you should NOT reject and the Board ignores his ruling, the Board and the Ass'n. is on their own.
Ken
Also, Nothing is said to applicant until the legal opinion is received back.
Ken
Hi Ken , Thanks for the info, that clears it up for me. Mike
Post a Comment